Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.
Click to expand...
Have you changed your mind again?

So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?
Click to expand...
oh the irony.

The FMOTL perspective is a powerful truth, and like many things powerful has the capacity to be abused.
Click to expand...
You would know Rob

No actually. My position is that my personal information and details are none of anyone's business and refusing to provide them is not evidence of criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Strawman alert!! who cares or has asked for your personal details?
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?
Click to expand...


And as far as using "logic and reason" to extrapolate a legal proposition from documents that don't explicitly support that proposition is concerned, here's a comment from a common law judgment:
A case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to logically follow from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.
Click to expand...
Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathen [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.) at 506.
 
FreemanMenard said:
So do you consider logic and reason to be 'evidence' or not?
Click to expand...




Have you ever heard the phrase, "Garbage in, garbage out"? Logic and reason are tools, not evidence. You can have a perfectly logically sound argument, but if the premises on which the argument is built are faulty, the conclusions will be faulty as well.

It doesn't matter how good your tools are, if you're working with shoddy materials, you get shoddy results. And shoddy results are all we've ever seen from your freeman waffle.
 
Mojo says this:

Mojo said:
Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent.
Click to expand...

Rob responds with this:

FreemanMenard said:
That is not an accurate expression of my beliefs at all.
Click to expand...

And, of course, that response is a shameless, outrageous, self-serving and bald-faced lie as is evidenced by a link a few posts back on this very page:

Menard the liar said:
However what you then pointed to was an Act or statute, and they simply do not have to force of law over those who do not consent.
http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/2922
Click to expand...
Needless to say, there are countless other examples on this forum and all over the Internet where Menard says precisely the same thing. For example here:
Menard said:
If I refuse to consent, none of the statutes everyone else calls laws will have the force of law with me.

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/elizabeth/
Click to expand...

Why does the chief Canadian FOTL guru insist on defending his failed ideas with obvious lies? Are liars honourable people? Why should we take anything a liar says at face value, ever?
 
Last edited:
From the letter to the Cops
Are you aware this means that if you try taking someones
unregistered automobile with your hand on your gun, and that automobile is
held under a claim of right, that you can be lawfully shot and killed?
Click to expand...

Do you acknowledge that the people of Canada who have secured the right
to carry a sidearm by way of a claim of right have the right to use that
sidearm to defend themselves against unprovoked assaults, especially
those initiated by people who are criminally negligent of the limits of
their authority?
Click to expand...

Iseize and sell ANY RCMP VEHICLE in North
Vancouver?
Click to expand...

I may use force to
stop even people like you from taking my property.
Click to expand...

I
have the right to use violence to stop you from taking my property thus
you do not.
Click to expand...

One day someone is going to take this seriously.

Someone is going to get killed.
 
D'rok said:
Mojo says this:



Rob responds with this:
Click to expand...

Perhaps Rob would be so kind as to point out exactly why Mojo's post:
Originally Posted by Mojo
Your position is that the legislation of the country you are living in does not apply to you without your personal consent.
Click to expand...
is an inaccurate description of Rob's beliefs?
 
I was going over the BC Supreme Court's mammoth 300+ page decision on polygamy and came accross an interesting quote cited in that case. It was from a Supreme Court of Canada decision called Malmo-Levine: LINK

Indeed, it would be inconsistent with the rule of law to allow compliance with a criminal prohibition to be determined by each individual’s personal discretion and taste.
Click to expand...
 
I actually consider efforts to start a "lawful bank" to be much more rational than a lot of typical freeman claims. It is something that could theoritically be done. Better to try to create something that operates according to freeman philosophy as opposed to simply asserting that everything already does operate that way if you only know the magic words.

Like for example just write UCC 96 or whatever on your bill and then the bank has to cut up your mortgage or forgive our debt. This type of claim requires a very high level of cognitive dissonance because it is easily confirmed that it won't work. Someone who simply wants to start up a bank where these rules would be followed is at least talking about something that isn't factually untrue. They may have a very ill concieved plan for running a bank, but at least they aren't believing nonsense about actual banks. (well they probably are the same people who believe nonsense, but theoritically you could be just in favour of this banking system without believing nonsense about current banks)
 
JLord said:
I actually consider efforts to start a "lawful bank" to be much more rational than a lot of typical freeman claims. It is something that could theoritically be done. Better to try to create something that operates according to freeman philosophy as opposed to simply asserting that everything already does operate that way if you only know the magic words.

Like for example just write UCC 96 or whatever on your bill and then the bank has to cut up your mortgage or forgive our debt. This type of claim requires a very high level of cognitive dissonance because it is easily confirmed that it won't work. Someone who simply wants to start up a bank where these rules would be followed is at least talking about something that isn't factually untrue. They may have a very ill concieved plan for running a bank, but at least they aren't believing nonsense about actual banks. (well they probably are the same people who believe nonsense, but theoritically you could be just in favour of this banking system without believing nonsense about current banks)
Click to expand...

Well, Roger Hayes (who is promoting this bank) recently in court when being persued for Council Tax told the court that he is only the representative of the legal fiction known as Roger Hayes then did the old birth certificate nonsense and claimed the court acknowledged the strawman.
He is now bankrupt but claims the legal fiction is bankrupt, not him.
His lawful bank is a scam.

ETA: At another of Hayes' court appearances he turned up with (IIRC) about a hundred or so supporters including members of the BNP. They filmed the proceedings and claim they arrested the judge. One of those who was with Hayes was arrested and has since been sent to prison for sixteen months.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm not saying the Lawful bank is a good idea, or that the person promoting it does not hold unreasonable positions on other issues. But if someone came to me and said "I don't believe in any freeman legal claims, but I would love to do my banking at a bank governed by freeman philosophy, so I'll try to start one," I would have to admit that there are is no fantasy element to this plan. It is a possible thing that could be done. Trying to gain support for this idea would not be deceptive in the way that typical freeman legal claims are.

This is also why I often try to encourage freemen to join the Libertarian Party and focus their efforts on something that could possibly be productive. It is possible that with enough hard work the Libertarian Party could gain support to the point that they are able to influence laws in Canada. I agree it seems very unlikely at this point, but look at all the misguided effort that people put into freeman research and documents and so on. If that were focused on a legitimate effort maybe the Libertarian Party (or even some new Freeman Party or something) might grow in grass roots popularity. Much of the libertarian platform aligns with what freemen want (not with their legal claims, but with their desires), such as less government interference, more individual freedom, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Stacey Grove said:
Well, Roger Hayes (who is promoting this bank) recently in court when being persued for Council Tax told the court that he is only the representative of the legal fiction known as Roger Hayes then did the old birth certificate nonsense and claimed the court acknowledged the strawman.
He is now bankrupt but claims the legal fiction is bankrupt, not him.
His lawful bank is a scam.

ETA: At another of Hayes' court appearances he turned up with (IIRC) about a hundred or so supporters including members of the BNP. They filmed the proceedings and claim they arrested the judge. One of those who was with Hayes was arrested and has since been sent to prison for sixteen months.
Click to expand...


Total FOTL win! It's odd how when they arrest the body the FOTL persona seems to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom